Re: [gnso-thickwhois-dt] weekly status report

["Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>]

nooooo….  <image of drowning Mikey going under w/o life preserver>  :-)

we'll miss you.  check our work carefully -- hopefully we'll make this clearer 
today.

m

On Sep 27, 2012, at 12:48 PM, "Ray Fassett" <ray@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Thanks Mikey…just an fyi that a conflict has developed for me and I will not 
> be able to attend today’s call.
>  
> Ray
>  
> From: Mike O'Connor [mailto:mike@xxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2012 1:21 PM
> To: Ray Fassett
> Cc: 'Metalitz, Steven'; 'Volker Greimann'; 'Drazek, Keith'; 
> Gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-thickwhois-dt] weekly status report
>  
> hi Ray,
>  
> i think i agree -- i was thinking the word in the database/technical way when 
> Tim originally raised the point -- whereas there is indeed a broader 
> definition relating to who has authority over the data.  i can imagine a 
> scenario where the authoritative data store (in a database sense) is with the 
> registry, but the registrars are the entities that have authority over that 
> data due to their relationship with customers.
>  
> i think we need clearer words, and we also need to pick which one we intend.  
> i'm stuck on what those clearer words would be, but i think that may be 
> because of my unfamiliarity with the nuance here.  are there two good words 
> that highlight the difference?
>  
> once we've got the right words, we've then got an interesting choice to make 
> as to which one.  clearly, a key "scope" discussion that needs to get 
> resolved before we wrap up the chartering.
>  
> thanks,
>  
> mikey
>  
>  
> On Sep 27, 2012, at 10:48 AM, "Ray Fassett" <ray@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> 
> It seems to me that Mikey’s suggestion of “adding something like this”: Other 
> implications of migrating the "authoritative" repository for registrant data 
> from Registrars to the Registry has had the effect of us identifying a “vast 
> majority” vs. those not part of the vast majority.  If so, I think this means 
> the scope of the issues may have the result of the WG segregating a minority 
> of gTLD’s from the majority of gTLD’s in going about their work on the 
> issues.  Personally, I think the word “authoritative”, and trying to fit this 
> word into the Charter in some common and understood context, has complicated 
> things.
>  
> Ray
>  
> From: owner-gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Metalitz, Steven
> Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2012 10:44 AM
> To: 'Volker Greimann'; Drazek, Keith
> Cc: Gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx PDP DT
> Subject: RE: [gnso-thickwhois-dt] weekly status report
>  
> Volker makes the important point that this issue already exists, it is not 
> created by a move to thick Whois.  And what Keith says about a registry that 
> “has always had thick whois” is equally true about any registry that “has not 
> always had thick Whois” – “The registrants in those TLDs gave their consent 
> for the data transfer upon registration of their domain name(s).”  This is 
> true of every single gTLD domain name in existence, because of the RAA 
> provision that requires registrars to obtain this consent.
>  
> Similarly, the issue of “authoritativeness”  of Whois data in the thick 
> registry setting already exists in the vast majority of gTLD registries.  I 
> appreciate Tim’s view that perhaps registrars that service thick registries 
> should not be required to maintain Whois data any more, but that would 
> require a change in the RAA and clearly seems out of scope for this PDP.   
>  
> In sum I think the draft adequately captures the scope of the issues that the 
> Working Group needs to address. 
>  
> Steve Metalitz   
>  
>  
>  
> From: owner-gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Volker Greimann
> Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2012 4:23 AM
> To: Drazek, Keith
> Cc: Gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx PDP DT
> Subject: Re: [gnso-thickwhois-dt] weekly status report
>  
> Hi Keith,
> 
> I agree that cross-border transfers of data would be an issue for registries 
> switching to a thick model, however all registrants have allready agreed to 
> the publication of the data, and in many cases also to a transfer abroad due 
> to many registrar policies having been written with both thick and thin 
> models in mind. Registrants also agreed to be bound by policy changes. Still, 
> the issue is not negligible. Maybe it could be solved by the registry by 
> setting up data centers in such jurisdictions where data transfer would be 
> problematic, and the central register only pointing to the geographic 
> location of the domain, just as currently they point to the individual 
> registrars? 
> 
> This is an issue that needs more thought.
> 
> Volker
> 
> Hi Volker,
>  
> Thanks for the insight. It sounds like there could be multiple models of 
> Whois Data authority, which seems appropriate.
>  
> Another question around the “authoritative” issue concerns privacy laws and 
> anticipated cross-border transfers of data.
>  
> For a TLD that has always had Thick Whois, the rules were established (and 
> presumably accepted by the registrants in their registration agreement with 
> the registrar) from their initial launch date. The registrants in those TLDs 
> gave their consent for the data transfer upon registration of their domain 
> name(s).
>  
> However, transferring personal Whois data for 100+ million registrations from 
> scores of international jurisdictions to a single entity could raise 
> additional privacy concerns. The question of which entity in which 
> jurisdiction has “authority” over the Whois data may need to be considered by 
> the WG and should not necessarily be presumed to be the registry in every 
> case, dependent upon national laws and the range of service offerings across 
> various registries.
>  
> Thanks, Keith
>  
>  
> <image001.gif>
> Keith Drazek
> Director of Policy
> kdrazek@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> 
> m: +1-571-377-9182
> 21345 Ridgetop Circle Dulles, VA 20166
> 
> VerisignInc.com
> <image003.gif>
>  
>  
> From: Volker Greimann [mailto:vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Monday, September 24, 2012 1:05 PM
> To: Drazek, Keith
> Cc: Gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx PDP DT
> Subject: Re: [gnso-thickwhois-dt] weekly status report
>  
> Hi Keith,
> 
> I see your point, but I do not believe it to be as much of an issue as you 
> make of it. The registry in any thick whois TLD is the central repository of 
> all whois data, regardly of where it was registered. The registrar is 
> responsible to provide the data to the registry. Verification can be assumed 
> and performed by either. In the new RAA, registrars will most likely assume 
> some of the responsibility, but the launch of .XXX has show this can also be 
> performed on a registry level. In fact, some ccTLDs such as .US also perform 
> routine validations on the registration requirements.
> 
> On the other hand, we have now seen cases where a "thick registry" has made 
> modifications to the registration based on court orders or other events, 
> which were not always notified to the registrar, i.e. left the registrar 
> database out of synch with the registrar database, yet these changes were 
> authoritative as far as the ownership of the domain is concerned. Whereas 
> registrars must always update the registry to effect a change of data in a 
> thick TLD. In other words, as the registry database is the last word on the 
> data, it should be the authoritative source.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Volker
> 
> 
> 
> Tim raises an important point, including the question of whether registries 
> or registrars are authoritative for Whois data.
>  
> I have concerns about a registry being authoritative for Whois data when it 
> has no direct connection to the registrant. As discussed on our last call, 
> the registry receives Whois data from the Registrar, not from the registrant. 
> As such, the registry has no way of independently 
> confirming/verifying/validating that the data is accurate. I think this 
> distinction becomes more of an issue if there’s a future requirement for 
> validation or verification of registrant Whois data, as requested by the GAC.
>  
> Ultimately, having a Thick Whois database at the registry level only 
> centralizes the data…it doesn’t make it any more accurate, validated, 
> verified, etc. since registries simply accept what is submitted by the 
> registrars.
>  
> I understand that some of the existing thick registries may already be 
> authoritative for their TLD’s Whois data, so perhaps we can benefit from 
> their experience.
>  
> This issue may or may not fit into the draft charter, but it’s probably worth 
> discussing further on our next call.
>  
> Thanks, Keith
>  
> <image001.gif>
> Keith Drazek
> Director of Policy
> kdrazek@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> 
> m: +1-571-377-9182
> 21345 Ridgetop Circle Dulles, VA 20166
> 
> VerisignInc.com
> <image003.gif>
>  
>  
> From: owner-gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
> Sent: Monday, September 24, 2012 12:27 PM
> To: Mike O'Connor; Gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx PDP DT
> Subject: RE: [gnso-thickwhois-dt] weekly status report
>  
> Thanks Mikey,
>  
> Sorry I haven't been able to make the calls, one thing or another has come 
> up. I think the current draft and changes look good but I do have one 
> comment/concern.
>  
> It seems to assumes if all regitries are thick that registrars will still be 
> required to maintain a set of WHOIS data themselves. However, if the 
> registries are all thick and authoritative for WHOIS data then I see no 
> reason why a registrar should continue to be required to maintain a duplicate 
> set of the data, especially since it will also be escrowed by the registry. I 
> would think a number of registrars would find it useful and cost effective to 
> simply use a registry's authoritative data instead of trying to maintain it 
> themselves. And I can easily see an effort by registrars to change the RAA 
> and/or policies to reflect that.
> So I don't think the PDP group should assume that both registrars and 
> registries will continue to maintain the data. It may be good to note that 
> possibility. Or alternatively, that may be a question they want to consider. 
> I don't think it would necessarily be out of scope since it is tightly 
> associated with whether all registries are thick or not, but others may have 
> a different opinion.
> Best,
> Tim  
>  
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [gnso-thickwhois-dt] weekly status report
> From: "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Sat, September 22, 2012 10:03 am
> To: "Gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx PDP DT"
> <Gnso-thickwhois-dt@xxxxxxxxx>
> 
> hi all,
> 
> here's the status report for this week. i *think* we're wringing out the last 
> issues in the draft. so this would be a good time to take a look at the 
> latest version. what seems to be working well is to run your ideas through 
> the list so then we can work through them on the call. here's a link to the 
> draft i pushed out after the last call.
> 
> http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-thickwhois-dt/doc3QzSkLIUIQ.doc
> 
> and here's the status report. i'm hoping we can get to a draft we can push 
> out for a consensus call by the end of the meeting on Thursday. 
> 
> thanks,
> 
> mikey
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - - - - - - - - -
> phone 651-647-6109 
> fax 866-280-2356 
> web http://www.haven2.com
> handle OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
>  
> Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
>  
> Volker A. Greimann
> - Rechtsabteilung -
>  
> Key-Systems GmbH
> Im Oberen Werk 1
> 66386 St. Ingbert
> Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
> Email: vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>  
> Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net
> www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
>  
> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:
> www.key-systems.net/facebook
> www.twitter.com/key_systems
>  
> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
> Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken 
> Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
>  
> Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
> www.keydrive.lu 
>  
> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen 
> Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder 
> Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese 
> Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per 
> E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.
>  
> --------------------------------------------
>  
> Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
>  
> Best regards,
>  
> Volker A. Greimann
> - legal department -
>  
> Key-Systems GmbH
> Im Oberen Werk 1
> 66386 St. Ingbert
> Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
> Email: vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>  
> Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net
> www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
>  
> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated:
> www.key-systems.net/facebook
> www.twitter.com/key_systems
>  
> CEO: Alexander Siffrin
> Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken 
> V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
>  
> Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
> www.keydrive.lu 
>  
> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is 
> addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this 
> email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an 
> addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify 
> the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
>  
>  
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.
>  
> Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
>  
> Volker A. Greimann
> - Rechtsabteilung -
>  
> Key-Systems GmbH
> Im Oberen Werk 1
> 66386 St. Ingbert
> Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
> Email: vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>  
> Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net
> www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
>  
> Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:
> www.key-systems.net/facebook
> www.twitter.com/key_systems
>  
> Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin
> Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken 
> Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534
>  
> Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
> www.keydrive.lu 
>  
> Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen 
> Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder 
> Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese 
> Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per 
> E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.
>  
> --------------------------------------------
>  
> Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
>  
> Best regards,
>  
> Volker A. Greimann
> - legal department -
>  
> Key-Systems GmbH
> Im Oberen Werk 1
> 66386 St. Ingbert
> Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901
> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851
> Email: vgreimann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>  
> Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net
> www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com
>  
> Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated:
> www.key-systems.net/facebook
> www.twitter.com/key_systems
>  
> CEO: Alexander Siffrin
> Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken 
> V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534
>  
> Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP
> www.keydrive.lu 
>  
> This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is 
> addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this 
> email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an 
> addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify 
> the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.
>  
>  
>  
>  
> - - - - - - - - -
> phone    651-647-6109  
> fax                          866-280-2356  
> web        http://www.haven2.com
> handle   OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, 
> etc.)
>  

- - - - - - - - -
phone   651-647-6109  
fax             866-280-2356  
web     http://www.haven2.com
handle  OConnorStP (ID for public places like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc.)